Larry Bagnell

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member, but I would first like to say as my preamble that I work great with the member. We are both on the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, and I think we work very well together and represent Canada well when we are with the other Arctic nations. I thank him for that.

All of our rural municipalities have received infrastructure projects and they are very happy about that. First, does the member applaud this?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 12th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, the member's speech earned well-deserved applause, and I appreciate the positive manner in which she gave it. She made a great case for culture. I think she knows we are on her side. We reinstated a lot of programs to support culture. I want to commend her on the positivity of her speech and the attitude of all Bloc members, particularly the leader. I said the other day that this is the way Parliament should be: positive, articulate, making a case politely and dealing with issues, not personalities.

Why are your people called porpoises?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, December 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, you are doing a great job.

I appreciated the tone and positivity of the member's speech. I am going to quote a line from the throne speech. It says, “A clear majority of Canadians voted for ambitious climate action now.” I am wondering what the member's plan would be for that if the Conservatives were in government.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, June 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the member for all her hard work on this file at committee and her very good amendments, which make this bill much better. I am sure she has more to say, so I will leave her time to do that, instead of asking a question.

However, I want to make one comment for the next Parliament. A number of people in solitary have FASD, and those people are not treated appropriately in the correctional system because of their affliction. I presented a bill earlier this year, which almost passed. Hopefully, some parliamentarians here will pick that up in the next Parliament.

I will let the member continue on the topic she was doing so well on.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, June 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. I think the member answered one at the end of his speech.

I think the Conservatives will vote against this bill, this concept, because they think it makes the prisons and people more dangerous. The member is making the case that because of the effect of solitary confinement on a person's mental and social situation, it makes it more dangerous not to deal with it.

The member wants improvements to the bill, which could come with a new Parliament in the fall, or at the five-year review or through the court challenge that he mentioned. However, if the votes of the New Democrats cause the bill to be defeated so nothing happens, does the member not think some inmates could have poorer treatment this summer? There are some improvements in the bill, obviously not enough, but there is more time out of cell, more rehabilitation services, etc.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, June 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, because we are near the end of the session, I want to thank my staff, Brad, Erica, Susan, Ellen, Alisha and formerly Denis Sabourin for their great work.

Also, anyone in the House who has questioned the existence of the Senate, which we call the other place here, this is a great example of where it has provided a number of suggested amendments and the government is accepting a number of them. This has happened since Confederation, where laws in Canada have been approved like this.

With the structured intervention, there would be significantly more time away from the cell and more time for programming, etc. Does the bill direct Correctional Service Canada to record these times to ensure they are followed. If it does not, are there penalties in the bill for CSC?

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, November 10, 1995, was the last time any committee reported 100 reports. Peter Milliken was the chair of PROC at the time.

I have the honour to present, in both official languages, at this historic moment, the 100th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Advice for the Consideration of Committees of the House of Commons in the 43rd Parliament”. This references procedures related to in-camera meetings and the Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame procedure.

The committee wanted to dedicate this report to a former member of Parliament, who we all had great fondness for. I will read the dedication:

The Committee dedicates its one hundredth report to the memory of the late Arnold Chan, who was the member for Scarborough—Agincourt, and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. As a colleague and friend, he was widely respected for his sharp legal mind, willingness to listen and pursuit of fairness. Mr. Chan was a driving force behind the motion to establish rules on the use of in camera meetings for the Committee. The rules were established in close collaboration with his fellow Committee members.

To Arnold Chan.

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, last time, I mentioned the great work of the committee clerk and the researcher. As this may be my last time up on these reports, I would like to congratulate all the committee members. I think we had a number of free spirits on our committee. I congratulate them for always making their decisions with integrity and based on what they believed. As can be seen, there has been a large volume of work.

I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 99th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Advice for the Consideration of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee in the 43rd Parliament”.

[Committees of the House, June 18th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 98th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “A Parallel Debating Chamber for Canada’s House of Commons”.

This may be a very historic report, because it may lead to the discussion of having a second House of Commons, a second parallel chamber similar to the ones in Britain and Australia.

As mentioned by you, Mr. Speaker, and a previous Conservative member, we would like to thank all the clerks and researchers in our committee, and in particular the clerk and researcher who have been with us since the beginning, and I think members would find are the best clerk and the best researcher in the House, maybe on division, Andrew Lauzon, the clerk, and Andre Barnes, our parliamentary researcher, for their great work.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, June 11th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted when the indigenous affairs critic asks questions supporting things that were in my speech. All 86 bills are very important. The member for Northwest Territories already answered that question when he said that we have to rebuild the trust that was broken by the Conservatives.

The member also made the point I started out with, which is that all the Conservatives who have spoken to this bill have talked about other bills, other things not related to the bill. It is no wonder Parliament has put time allocation on this bill, when Conservatives repeat over and over again things that are not even related to the bill we are debating.